Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just very quickly, the Senator pointed out this analysis we have gotten where the premiums go into the stratosphere. Senator Murray and I worked a long time on it. Wages for working people are going up about as fast as a snail trying to climb uphill. I am curious what you think that means for working- class families in Virginia, because I know in my home State--and Senator Merkley and I have talked about this--we have working families right now who every single month are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food bill against the fuel bill, the fuel bill against the rent bill. Because my colleague was correct with respect to the fact that this would start, by the way, in January--this is not some kind of far- removed thing--people are going to feel the hit of these skyrocketing premiums right away. What does my colleague think that is going to mean for working-class families in his home State?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my leader, Senator Schumer. Colleagues, before morning, millions of Americans could be on their way to lives filled with healthcare misery, eye-popping cost increases, hollowed-out coverage, and gutted consumer protections. Colleagues, there are already stories of Americans hoarding pills and clamoring for screenings because they fear what the future is going to bring. These are the Americans who took deep breaths of relief 7 years ago when the Affordable Care Act became law. Women were no longer penalized for their gender. Cancer survivors no longer had to worry about busting a limit on coverage and facing personal bankruptcy. Entrepreneurs with a big idea had the freedom to set out on their own, no longer tied to their employer insurance because they had a preexisting condition. Now all of them are looking at lives on hold. The skinny repeal package makes a mockery out of the President's promise to lower premiums. He made that promise repeatedly to the American people: no reductions in coverage, no increases in premiums. This bill makes a mockery out of that Presidential pledge. Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office--the independent umpires--have told us the premiums are going to jump 20 percent next year as a result of this bill. That goes into effect, colleagues, January 1 of this year. Some happy New Year: Your premiums have jumped through the roof. Colleagues, vote for this and try to explain it to the people you represent and have them tell you that there is not going to be anything they can sacrifice to pay for that rate hike. Their wages are flat, they are on an economic tightrope, and they are going to have to have premium hikes with a 20-percent hit. The Finance Committee is accountable for funds that are critical for women's health. This measure begins the effort to take away the right of women to go to the provider they choose. That, too, will be hard to explain to millions of Americans who simply want what we have: the right to make your own healthcare choices. Colleagues, the damage may get worse. Skinny repeal could be the gateway drug to TrumpCare. We still don't know what is going to happen with Medicaid so seniors are worried, kids with special needs, disabled folks. If the Senate and the House head to a conference--that is a big ``if''--this body is going to face a radical set of demands from a very stubborn extreme on the other side of the Capitol. My time has expired. I appreciate Leader Schumer getting me this time. The promises Senators have gotten to protect their constituents, those promises could well be in the trash can within 48 hours. I urge my colleagues to think about what it is going to be like to go home and explain to their constituents how this misery--how this healthcare misery came to be a part of their lives every single day. I don't think they are going to be able to make the case. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray on this motion to recommit. I yield back.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to recognize Les and Eva Aigner, two brave Oregonians who lived through the horrors of the Holocaust. I want to honor Les and Eva in the Senate today and share how they survived Nazi atrocities and went on to live in Portland, OR, where they have taught countless young men and women about the dangers of intolerance and hate. Eva Aigner, nee Speigel, was born in 1937 in Kosice, Czechoslovakia, where she lived with her sister, mother, and father. Two years after her birth, Eva's father lost his business license due to growing anti- Semitism, prompting the family to move to Budapest. There they hoped they would be safe from Nazi extremism, but even in Hungary, as a Jew, Eva's father struggled to find work. As time went on, new laws forced Eva and her family to wear the yellow star, and Eva and her sister were soon unable to attend school due to growing intolerance. Soon after, Eva's father was taken to a forced labor camp where he was killed. Eva and her remaining family members were then taken to the Budapest ghetto where the Nazis selected Eva's mother for deportation to a concentration camp. The remaining children, including Eva and her sister, as well as the sick and the old who were unable to work for the Nazi war machine, were taken to the Danube in the middle of the night to be shot. Eva and her sister only managed to survive because their mother escaped from the deportation train and bribed a guard to spare their lives. From there, they were taken back into the Budapest ghetto where they hid, without food or running water, until the Russian soldiers liberated the ghetto on January 18, 1945. The rest of Eva's extended family, who remained in Czechoslovakia, with the exception of one cousin, did not survive the Holocaust. Like Eva, Leslie ``Les'' Aigner was born in Czechoslovakia. In his case, the small town of Nove Zamky, on June 3, 1929. He had two sisters--one older, one younger. The Aigners moved to Hungary in the early 1940s to escape the growing Nazi threat, settling in Csepel, on the outskirts of Budapest. Since Jewish children were not allowed access to higher education, Les went to a trade school to become a machinist. Eventually, it became unsafe for Les to even walk to school, and his devoutly religious family stopped attending synagogue for fear of attack. Les's father was soon taken to a labor camp, and his 16- year-old sister was taken to a paper mill to do forced labor. Les, his mother and his 8-year-old sister were then forced into the Budapest ghetto before being taken to Auschwitz. Upon arrival, the Nazis selected Les's mother and sister for the gas chambers and took Les to the camp. Les spent 4 months in Auschwitz. He worked in the kitchen and survived by stealing food. During his imprisonment in the concentration camp, Les was injured after a guard threw a pitchfork through his foot. While Les was in the hospital with an infection from this injury, a Dr. Epstein warned Les that the Nazis planned to execute prisoners who were no longer able to walk. At Dr. Epstein's urging, Les limped out of the hospital in the middle of the night to avoid being taken to the gas chamber. Dr. Epstein, a prisoner himself, saved Les's life that night. Les then exchanged his clothing with another prisoner who wanted to stay with his father in Auschwitz and was transferred to Landsberg, a sub-camp of Dachau. He performed hard labor for several months and was then transferred again to Kauffering Camp, where he contracted typhus before being sent to Dachau on the so-called Death Train. By the time he arrived, Les weighed only 75 pounds. He was finally freed by American soldiers on April 29, 1945. It took over a month of treatment before Les was able to walk on his own. When Les finally regained his health, he made his way back to Budapest, where he reunited with his father and older sister. Most of their other family members had been killed. After the war, both Eva and Les began to rebuild their lives in Budapest. They finished school and joined the workforce, Les as a machinist and Eva as an office worker at a collective fur company. In 1956, Les and Eva where introduced to one another by Eva's colleague, who happened to be a distant relative of Les. Les and Eva quickly became engaged and were married only 59 days later. When the Hungarian Revolution began against the communist regime, Les and Eva, along vat Les's father and stepmother, fled to Austria and then the U.S., eventually settling in Portland, OR. Starting over in a new country was challenging, but the Aigners carried on and made a life in Portland, finding work and starting a family. Les continued to work as a machinist, and Eva worked as a cosmetologist, eventually opening her own salon. Eva's mother came to live with them in Portland as well. Les and Eva are the proud parents of their daughter Sue, and their son Rob, who blessed them with four wonderful grandsons. They are waiting to welcome their first great- grandchild. Les and Eva rebuilt their lives, but they never forgot the horrors they had endured. As Holocaust deniers became increasingly vocal in the 1980s, the Aigners began telling their stories publicly and speaking out against discrimination and intolerance. They have worked with the Holocaust Memorial Coalition since its inception in 1994. Eva was even the vice chair of the project to build the Oregon Holocaust Memorial, which she said was the proudest achievement in her life besides giving birth to her children. Many of my colleagues in the Senate have heard me speak about my own family's experience fleeing the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. We lost family and loved ones on Kristallnacht and at Theresienstadt. Tolerance, inclusiveness, and compassion are issues my family takes very seriously. That is why I am so deeply honored to be able to recognize the Aigners today and to pay tribute to the invaluable work that they do. At a time when hate and intolerance seem increasingly pervasive in our social and political discourse, it is now more important than ever that we remember the horrors that so many people endured at the hands of the Nazi regime, the death and pain they suffered in the name of hate, discrimination, and fear. In Eva Aigner's own words, ``Discrimination can start with little things. It can start with as much as racial jokes or religious jokes. It can start with just small hatred which can grow. . . . The way to fight is to educate the young people. To let them know what discrimination can do. And how innocent people can get killed and go through such terrors . . . and have their family pulled apart.'' We must not forget; we must educate. We must educate ourselves and each other so that nothing like the horrors of the Nazi regime will ever happen again. Les and Eva Aigner have dedicated their lives to exactly that, and that is why I am so incredibly grateful to honor them today, for their strength, their compassion, their generosity, and their willingness to educate and make Oregon, our country, and our world a more tolerant, safer, and better place. For that reason, I offer both Les and Eva Aigner my deepest affection and warmest thanks for using their voices to teach generations to come to never, ever forget.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for an excellent statement and for appealing to the better angels. Mr. President, I am rising to speak about the Donnelly amendment, which is very much needed because the President--and now Republicans-- are walking back a clear commitment. The President said in the campaign that he would not cut Medicaid, he wouldn't touch it, but even before the inauguration, the Trump team eagerly signed on to a Republican plan to slash it by more than $700 billion. They stared into television cameras, looked American voters in the eyes, and said that somehow these massive cuts to Medicaid wouldn't in any way harm the seniors. Medicaid picks up 2 out of 3 dollars with respect to seniors in nursing home beds and special needs kids and disabled youngsters. When we hear that Medicaid picks up the cost of two out of three nursing home beds and compare that to the President's statement that he wouldn't cut Medicaid--wouldn't cut it--when we are now faced with a plan to cut it by more than $700 billion, one, that is walking back the President's solemn pledge in the campaign, and, two, it is going to make it harder for older people in this country to be able to afford long-term care. The majority has brought the TrumpCare debate and the extreme Medicaid cuts that I just described directly to the floor of this Senate without a single committee hearing to justify this ill-advised policy. Our colleague from Indiana, Senator Donnelly, has put forward an important amendment to stop this ideological crusade to unravel the Medicaid safety net. Senator Donnelly's proposal would send this partisan attack on Medicaid back to the Senate Finance Committee, where it should have been raised and struck down in the first place. Mr. President, I am the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. My focus in public life has always been to try to find common ground with people of common sense. And I wrote with colleagues--many of whom still serve on the Republican side and on the Democratic side--a universal coverage bill that pulled together both sides of the political spectrum. So unless you provide an opportunity to have a discussion about the Medicaid safety net in the Senate Finance Committee, you are not going to be able to have policies that get to common ground on this vital issue. What you are going to have is what is really on offer now--an anti-Medicaid crusade that is a grave threat to the health and well- being of tens of millions of Americans. Over the last few months, I have heard Republican colleagues say that Medicaid is a disincentive to work and that there are too many able- bodied adults enrolled. If you look at the facts, that is not what the program is all about. Medicaid is a vital source of coverage for our neighbors and friends who live in poverty. It tells those families that healthcare is covered while they work to climb the economic ladder in the private sector. In addition to that, for the older people I have mentioned--these are the folks who have done everything right in life. They went to school, they found jobs, they worked hard in their careers, they raised families, and they scrimped and saved all through their lives. Growing old in America is pretty costly. So what happens is that millions of seniors who have done everything right spend down their savings, and that is when Medicaid steps in to help. It covers two out of three seniors living in nursing homes. It is a major source of funding for community-based care, and people generally don't know that. Now they may have heard about nursing homes, but it also picks up the costs for community-based care, where older people are more comfortable, and it often costs less than institutional care. Seniors who lose those benefits due to TrumpCare Medicaid cuts are going to have to find somewhere else to live. A lot of families want to be able to help elderly parents and grandparents. It is going to be pretty hard because a lot of them are walking on an economic tightrope, and if they go looking for nursing home care, it is going to cost on average more than $90,000. So it is seniors, and it is disabled folks who count on Medicaid to have a chance to be productive. With the Medicaid benefits under threat, people with disabilities are going to find it hard to be able to attain the productive role in our society that they so fervently want to have. Our communities are so much better off when folks with disabilities can contribute, and Medicaid makes that possible. It covers services that many private insurers don't. It helps people make it out of bed and provides safe transportation to jobs. It helps them avoid unnecessary illnesses. It is not a disincentive for people with disabilities to work; having the support of Medicaid is what makes it possible for disabled folks to work. Across the country, there are millions of kids with special needs who rely on Medicaid every day for services--behavioral care services, mental health services. Mom or dad might have good insurance through work, but private plans don't always cover the care those vulnerable kids need.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, on this matter of repealing the Affordable Care Act, soon the Senate is going to vote on just whether or not to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I think it is important to note that this would walk back months and months of Republican promises to directly link repealing the Affordable Care Act with a replacement-- a replacement that would improve coverage, lower premiums, and be better for the American people. In fact, the President of the United States said repeatedly over the last few months that these would be inextricably linked, that repeal and replace would go hand-in-hand. That is not what is on offer right now. What is on offer are specific changes that would actually harm Americans. For example, no more middle-class tax credits for healthcare--that is something that is critically important to the millions of middle-class folks who are walking on an economic tightrope every month, balancing their food costs against their fuel costs, their fuel costs against their medical costs. I was struck this morning when I heard that, under this repeal approach, there is not going to be any real pain, that everything is just put off. Make no mistake about it. The pain for our families under this repeal measure is going to start right away. Nobody says they are going to be part of a marketplace if they believe it is not going to exist in a few years. Seventeen million fewer Americans are going to have healthcare 1 year from now. An analysis from the Congressional Budget Office--and this is only a week old--said that half of the country will have zero insurance choices in the private marketplace under this scheme. I would like to repeat that so people understand that, as to this idea that there is really no pain here and that nothing starts for a long time, the Congressional Budget Office--our nonpartisan, impartial umpire--doesn't agree with that. They said just last week that half of the country will have zero insurance choices in the private marketplace under this scheme. That goes up to 75 percent of Americans with no options in later years. So my view is that this is just legislative malpractice, first because of the pain and harm it is going to cause so many Americans. The Congressional Budget Office says that kind of misery is going to kick in quickly. Second--and I don't think this has been discussed on the floor--this walks back months and months of Republican promises. The American people were told again and again that repeal and replace were going to be directly linked. The President said it multiple times. Then he went over the top and told people that they were going to have lower costs and better coverage.

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. WYDEN. I would say to my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, that we are talking about one-sixth of the American economy.

Mr. WYDEN. My colleague is being logical, and heaven forbid that logic should be introduced into this, because we would automatically assume that on a matter like this--we are talking about one-sixth of the American economy--the Senate Finance Committee would have hearings. There have been no hearings.

Mr. WYDEN. None.

Mr. WYDEN. I can tell my colleagues that Senator Murray and I, the two of us--the ranking member on the Budget Committee and I--have actually made public the overwhelming opposition from providers on this. So, in effect, providers and patients are standing together in opposition to this.

Mr. WYDEN. They are opposed, as I have indicated. I think it is particularly important to see this provider-patient partnership that this time is saying the patients come first and this bill hurts patients.

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct.

Mr. WYDEN. What I can tell my colleagues is that, again, those hospitals have not been in front of the Finance Committee. One of the things I appreciate about so many colleagues on this side of the aisle is that they said: Well, if we are not going to hear from these providers, like the hospitals, in the committee, we are going to go out to the country and listen to them. I have had townhall meetings throughout rural Oregon, as my colleague Senator Merkley has had. The rural hospitals, which are the economic engines of so many rural communities, are opposed to this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN. The AARP has also not been in front of the Senate Finance Committee. I want to say again that Senators have said: If they are not going to be in front of the Senate Finance Committee, where we ought to actually hear testimony in line with the regular order, we are going to go out to the country and listen to AARP members and organizations. They are overwhelmingly opposed to this because people between 55 and 64 would pay five times as much as younger people, and they would get fewer tax credits.

Mr. WYDEN. It is hundreds and hundreds of dollars and, in a number of instances, more. The reality is that I think they are going to have a lot of trouble getting coverage at all. The reality is, when you pour gasoline on the fires of uncertainty--and this is particularly important right now as plans are thinking about signing up--that makes it more likely you aren't going to have plans at all. The Congressional Budget Office has also found that the Paul legislation makes that worse.

Mr. WYDEN. While the senior groups have not been able to come before the Finance Committee to discuss this issue, I can say--and I have been working with a number of these organizations since my days with the Gray Panthers--that they are overwhelmingly opposed to this. I think, in particular, this idea that we heard from the Congressional Budget Office last week--that half of the country will have zero insurance choices in the private marketplace under this repeal scheme, and that it goes up--will just cause even more seniors to be against it.

Mr. WYDEN. Under this legislation, you would have a massive rollback of the Medicaid Program. So for all of those older people who scrimped and saved all of their lives--they didn't take that vacation; they tried to make sure they could educate their kids--Medicaid picks up the costs of two out of three nursing home beds in America. This legislation would produce a massive rollback of the Medicaid Program, and I believe so many older people are going to find long-term care unaffordable--millions.

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct.

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. It would be accompanied with further misery because it would leave the millions suffering from opioid addiction with nowhere to turn for coverage as a result of this massive rollback in Medicaid coverage under this amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes, the fortunate few would benefit under the House bill. There is no question about it. To give my colleagues an idea of how regressive those efforts are, they would actually be retroactive. So this idea that these tax cuts for the well-to-do were in some way going to create jobs is just absurd. They are made retroactive. So they aren't going to be creating jobs going forward.

Mr. WYDEN. A few hundred families benefit so greatly that it could actually cover Medicaid expansion in several States.

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. The special interests get very, very substantial tax breaks. Those working-class people lose tax credits, so they actually lose, and, in effect, those dollars can be used for the tax cuts for the fortunate.

Mr. WYDEN. There is nothing that would give Medicare bargaining power to make sure seniors get a better deal. There is nothing for the kind of effort our colleague from Vermont and Senator Klobuchar have pursued, which would allow, under circumstances where there were safety precautions, for pharmaceuticals to come from other countries. There is nothing to go after pharmaceutical middlemen. So, yes, there is nothing in these bills to hold down the cost of pharmaceuticals.